Examples Of Design Critique Methodology

3.2. Design Critique Methodology

Before providing further information regarding the critique forms, types, or techniques, Table 1 illustrates how a critique is categorized. Firstly, a critique technique can be characterized by the number of students; an instructor can expect more active participation from smaller groups. Secondly, it can be distinguished as private or public. Desk critiques are private, although fellow students can easily hear another student’s critique in an open studio environment. The larger the group, the more public the critiquing session. Finally, a critiquing session can be characterized by its formality. Informal critiquing sessions tend to be more constructive while formal critiquing sessions are more evaluative (Günday,

A casual review of any architecture curriculum reveals that it is based primarily around the design studio. Recently, this role has developed to enhance learning experience of students (Clinton and Rieber 2010; Mostafa and Mostafa, 2010; Oh et al., 2013; Sagun et al., 2001). To understand the previous learning experiences of the students and their feelings and reactions about different critique and assessment methodologies, it is always prudent to have students weigh in with their preferences as well. It is hoped that by understanding how students think and learn rather than operating on assumptions, the architectural studios can provide more responsive modes of

The questionnaire session started after a brief discussion about the role of design studio, critique, and assessment, after which the form was issued to all the students enrolled in the programme. The sample included male and female students (19 in the first level, 17 in the second level, 18 in the third level, and 25 in the fourth level). Studio instructors did not participate while completing the questionnaire; thus their impact was nullified. For the purpose of academic integrity, students were informed that the questionnaire results would not influence their assessment in any way and any publication of results would be summative and anonymous. A rating system was developed based on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, in which 5 stands for complete agreement. In addition, the students were asked to give different ranks. The data collected from different questions were analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. In addition, the questionnaire session was followed by interviews, to explore the hidden causes behind the issues that were considered significant by the respondents, to validate the questionnaire surveys results and to clarify ambiguous points. The following section presents the main findings from the questionnaire and discusses possible future scenarios about studio-based